OFFENCES (Hansard, 28 February 1973)

§ Mr. Bruce-Gardyne
I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 11, line 44, after 'Act', insert or to secure the establishment of an independent inquiry into terms and conditions of employment under which that organisation or person is employed". I should perhaps make it clear that this is basically a probing amendment. I am anxious to ascertain how the Government interpret the legal provisions in this legislation governing industrial action.
The sensible purpose of the amendment is to lay down that, just as it is stated to be illegal in Clause 14 for a person or group of persons to organise industrial action in pursuit of a wage claim which has been found to be in excess of the diktat of the Pay Board, so it would be against the letter of the law for a group of employees to take industrial action to secure the establishment of an independent inquiry into terms and conditions of employment which in turn was designed to achieve a settlement over and above the limits which my right hon. and hon. Friends have chosen.
1636 This is not an entirely academic proposition. Certainly it is not if one is to judge from the pages of New Statesman, which I confess is not my normal bedtime reading but which occasionally I dip into, the current issue of which carries a report from its industrial correspondent, Mr. Peter Patterson, who writes: Obviously the Government is taking a serious step in making strikes over pay illegal. As I understand it, the Government are not doing that. What they are doing is to make provision whereby if a strike occurs against a settlement which has received the blessing of the very aptly named Sir Frank Figgures and his Pay Board, my right hon. and hon. Friends may seek legal powers to prevent this action being pursued.
Mr. Patterson writes: Obviously the government is taking a serious step in making strikes over pay illegal. However, even its most totalitarian mood is relieved by incompetence. … Let me hasten to say that those are Mr. Patterson's words and not mine. … for the Counter-Inflation Bill seems to be so narrowly drawn that, provided the union declares that the purpose of its strike is to secure a court of inquiry into the grievances of its members rather than to force the employer to raise wages above the norm, the government might well fail to get a conviction. That, at least, is what several union leaders are hoping. It might be as well before we complete the Report stage to know from the Government whether the hopes which are attributed in that article to union leaders are justified. If they are not, I submit that a slightly worrying conclusion has to be drawn.
We must recognise that if industrial action is taken on a basis which is in no way illegal under this legislation but where the rejection of the Pay Board's decision on the demands of the employees involved would itself be illegal, the company which is struck against will find itself in an unfortunate position.
10.15 p.m.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that in the recent dispute—which I understand is now concluded—between BRS and BLMC the union members had been striking for an independent court of inquiry under phase 2 into their claim in order to achieve a settlement in excess of the guidelines which 1637 my hon. Friends have laid down for phase 2. If British Leyland were prepared to give them a settlement in excess of the guidelines, presumably my right hon. Friends would proceed against it by order and it could find itself having the increases disallowed.
If, on the other hand, British Leyland, were to resist such a strike—in other words, a strike designed to secure the establishment of an independent court of inquiry which in turn was intended to provide a settlement in excess of the guidelines laid down for phase 2—presumably it—or any company in a similar situation—could find itself driven into bankruptcy by the operation of this legislation.
In other words, by resisting a strike which was not itself illegal to the point at which its liquid resources were exhausted the company could be driven into bankruptcy, at which point, I suppose, my right hon. Friends would bring before us the British Leyland Public Ownership Bill. I have to tell my right hon. Friends that there are some of us—certainly myself—who would look upon such legislation with precious little favour, although one would hardly be able to deny the carrying through of such legislation since the House of Commons had willed the means and could hardly complain at the end.
I think that we should have a clear indication from my right hon. Friends about the precise legal position of industrial disputes under phase 2. If it be the case that it will be in order for any union to go on strike in order to achieve a better settlement than that which is available to it under the guidelines of phase 2 provided it says that the purpose of the strike is simply to secure the establishment of an independent inquiry to achieve its ends, the House should know that that is the case before we complete the Report stage of the Bill.

§ Mr. Maurice Macmillan
I think it is fairly clear what the legal position will be once the Bill has received the Royal Assent and become an Act. Strikes over pay will not be illegal. Strikes against settlements will not be illegal. Strikes against an order or notice under the Bill will not be illegal. What will be illegal is action in calling, organizing, procuring or financing a strike, or threat- 1638 ening to do so, organising, procuring or financing any irregular industrial action short of a strike, or threatening to do so, against an order made under Clause 5 or against an order or notice made by the Pay Board under Clause 7.
I think that the situation which my hon. Friend described is a factor of a transitional situation where the purpose of the industrial action is to secure in stage 2 of the counter-inflation policies a settlement which is contrary to those policies. The situation envisaged by my hon. Friend could not happen after the passage of the Bill, because it would be regarded as threatening to do so once a notice or order had been made.
I will, however, look at the situation which my hon. Friend has exposed. I understand that it is improbable that it will arise, but if there is a loophole I will certainly consider it. There is no intention to make striking itself illegal, but only the calling, procuring, or financing of a strike or irregular industrial action short of a strike——

§ Mr. Russell Kerr (Feltham)
There is no difference.

§ Mr. Macmillan
There is a considerable difference. We debated this in Committee. The difference is that it is the union which is liable rather than the individual. The powers are admittedly rather less strong than they have been before, but they are adequate to deal with the situation in which action is taken against an order made under Clause 5 or an order or notice of the Pay Commission under Clause 7, which are the only offences under those clauses.

§ Mr. Biffen
The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) for raising this point. What one wishes to avoid in this legislation is providing some kind of martyr's charter for some activist or other whose motivation in industrial disputes may be somewhat wider than merely the securing of enhanced remuneration for those involved in the disputes.
Although my right hon. Friend seemed to preclude the possibility of there being a strike to secure the establishment of an independent inquiry and said that the offence could arise only as a result of industrial action to prevent the implementation of an order or notice, the fact 1639 remains that the Secretary of State himself has the right to overrule and disagree with an order or notice served by one of the agencies. What certain sophisticated militants will be looking at when considering this legislation is whether or not they can call a dispute the purpose of which is to induce my right hon. Friend to override a judgment of the agency, to overrule an order or notice served by the Pay Commission.
I hope that this point, in addition to that mentioned by my hon. Friend, will exercise the minds of the Government. If it cannot be answered tonight I fully understand, but I hope it will be taken into account when the legislation proceeds to another place. Those of us who faithfully, unanimously and through the night, on the recurring three-line Whips, voted for the Industrial Relations Act did not precisely foresee the consequences which were to flow from it.
We are therefore entitled to try to spot the "Pentonville Five" of the next generation. If we do not, we shall be failing in an elementary duty laid upon us by recent experience. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear these points in mind and will ensure that before the Bill receives the Royal Assent we shall be spared some of the embarrassments that we received under the Industrial Relations Act.

§ Mr. Bruce-Gardyne
I understand that my right hon. Friend is giving an assurance that he will investigate the position and let us know the precise legal situation of a strike called after the passage of a notice or order in order to obtain an independent court of inquiry, presumably to arrive at another solution than that contained in the notice or order. On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.